Maybe his nickname should be "The (dumb-as-a-bag-of-)Hammer(s)"

[docwebster]

"I hope the Supreme Court will finally read the Constitution and see there's no such thing, or no mention, of separation of church and state in the Constitution" - Tom DeLay, March 1, 2005.

I'd love to email Tom DuhLay and enlighten him.

Comments

[docwebster.livejournal.com]

Took the short bus to the Capitol this morning, eh Tom? Try the first ammendment, dink.

[lubedpumpkin.livejournal.com]

Oh the Bill of Rights? Technically he's wrong then. =)

The absolutist view of the Constitution would follow "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" to a T. NO law whatsoever.

Unfortunately, to my knowledge only Scalia and.. some other one, one of the lesser famous ones considers themselves to be absolutist.

I think the SC would agree with Tom, unfortunately. And historically, there have been *many* laws dealing with religion, religious practice, and display.

[Not that I think it's right. I don't. Just sayin'.]

[ceruleanst.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to figure out the logical difference, and all I can come up with is that the so-called "absolute" standpoint means that the government can establish a state religion and persecute the practitioners of other belief systems as long as it is not written down in law. Given that making laws is all Congress does, I'm not sure what they think this would enable them to do.